You are here

About proofs for god

There are many people on the site currently touting that they have a proof for the existence of god. Well let me break the news to you:

There is probably no way to prove god exists, even if he does. There are many reasons why, but perhaps the simplest reason for this is: you will never eliminate all the cases.

For example: it is possible the universe was created 5 seconds ago by a yellow mutant space chicken named Steve who promptly vaporized himself. Ridiculous? Sure. But it is very unlikely you will be able to eliminate this case. Worse still: even if you do (somehow) manage to eliminate it; there are presumably an infinite number of such cases that need to be eliminated. And you will need to eliminate them in large batches otherwise you will never finish your proof. The only hope to eliminate them in large batches is to start adding premises. But each premise you add weakens your work. If there is even a sliver of doubt about even one premise, you don't have a proof; you have an argument that might convince the people who already accept its conclusions, and probably won't convince anyone else. It is a hopeless task to attempt to prove such things, even if they are true! As the famous quote goes:

Also, it is important to define god. Obviously Abrahamic gods are explained as well as Zeus and Ra have been, so they are clearly invented by man in the last few thousand years. By "proof of god" some mean proof of a Creator of some description, or definition. That is not the same as an Abrahamic god or any in godchecker.com. As you say, it is unclear if proof of such a entity would be possible.

Then there is the 'blob theory'. I could just be imagining absolutely everything and, in reality, be no more than a blob.

Only reason and evidence can justify to each other what we believe to be true.

Trying to prove that you're not a blob wired into some kind of super-computer is as impossible as defining theoretical gods, and you could probably go completely insane trying to do it. Whether we recognise it or not, each of us lives in his/her own version of reality anyway.

For example: it is possible the universe was created 5 seconds ago by a yellow mutant space chicken named Steve who promptly vaporized himself. Ridiculous?

It's not just ridiculous, It's OUTRIGHT FALSE, it's even Impossible.

it is very unlikely you will be able to eliminate this case.

No it's not. your chicken is a contingent being. so, it cannot be the cause of all contingent things since it would lead to a vicious circle, If you happen to know what that even means, so it's impossible.

Unless it's a necessary being, then there cannot be anything to begin to exist at all. Not unless you're saying that this being is a necessary being, then calling it a god or a chicken would be just a dispute in terminology. thus, it's a capitulation rather than an objection. but this is cannot be the case since a necessary being, by definition, would never vaporize.

even if you do (somehow) manage to eliminate it; there are presumably an infinite number of such cases that need to be eliminated

No there are not. all of your absurd examples —no one of a sound mind would come up with, which you think, out of your lower level of intelligence, that they somehow are possibilities— would not be but contingent things. whether it's a chicken called Steve that vaporizes or it's an ominstupid cow called Nyarlathotep who takes a form of an atheist.

And you will need to eliminate them in large batches otherwise you will never finish your proof.

that's just like saying we should make a law states that: Red cars must stop when lights are red, Silver cars must stop when lights are red, Black cars must stop when lights are red and so on. If just "cars" is enough then "contingent" is enough.

each premise you add weakens your work

No shit :''D where the fuck did you get that from, GENIUS? It's funny when atheists start talking what seems to be logic.

If there is even a sliver of doubt about even one premise, you don't have a proof

I love it when atheists leave the whole thing and start a dispute in terminology. Just Imagine one of the-flat-is-earth society, his one and only objection is: "hey don't say that you have proofs that the earth is round just call them arguments because we clearly are doubting them." that would be hilarious. doubting facts is not gonna make them fiction.

we call a sound and valid argument a proof. If you doubt about its soundness then it doesn't mean it's neither sound nor a proof.

It is a hopeless task to attempt to prove such things, even if they are true!

You could've just said that you don't want to believe in a god instead of writing all that nonsense.

"[A]ll of your absurd examples —no one of a sound mind would come up with, which you think, out of your lower level of intelligence, that they somehow are possibilities— would not be but contingent things."

He himself stated that his example was ridiculous. Obviously he does not believe it is possible. Now you are arguing that it is not possible. No shit. That is part of his point. He said you can't prove the nonexistence of it, not that it might actually exist. This argument is not about what doesn't exist; it is about whether it can be proven by pure logic or credible evidence. The argument that the chicken and God do not exist is another one, one which cannot be proven either, although as you say about the chicken, these are ridiculous things to believe.

We atheists cannot prove to you that no gods exist because we have not (or at least I have not) proven that all gods are logical contradictions, just as the chicken is not a logical contradiction, and cannot show evidence that something does not exist. There is no such thing. You can only show evidence that something is not in a specific place and time. You can't eliminate the whole universe because we haven't been everywhere.

God cannot be logically disproved; he's just a very silly concept, just as the chicken is. That's the point, I think.

I know, I did not write the comment just to say that this example is ridiculous, but to say it's Impossible.

Obviously he does not believe it is possible

Re-read what he wrote. you think ridiculous=not possible. And since he does think it's ridiculous, therefore he does not believe that these examples are possibilities. that's not necessarily true. Because if he thinks these examples cannot even be possible scenarios for the existing of the universe, then why the fuck asking theists to eliminate them? what would be the point of the post then? how can not eliminating what are not possible be a problem at all?

and that's just on the supposition that his claim about these examples not being eliminated is true. But it isn't. We prove that the cause of the world must be necessary and cannot be contingent, so unless that chicken is a necessary then it cannot be the cause of the world.

We atheists cannot prove to you that no gods exist

Irrelevant. No one asks you to.

God cannot be logically disproved; he's just a very silly concept, just as the chicken is. That's the point, I think.

God's not a silly concept. chicken is not a silly concept in itself. But as a contingent thing causing all contingent things to exist it's a silly concept, it's even impossible.

No that's not the point. the point he wanted to make is that to show that proving god is impossible because there are an infinite number of cases that needs to be eliminated first. and as we see, all these infinite cases reduce to one case which is the cause of the universe is a contingent being which is ruled out in any argument that proves god's existence.

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.